IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 8303 of 2008(L)
1. MOHAMMED A.K., KANNUR CENTRAL MARKET,
... Petitioner
2. C.HASSAN KUNHI, -DO- -DO-
3. B.K.ASHRAF, -DO- -DO-
4. V.K.ABDUL HAMEED, -DO- -DO-
5. T.HASSANKUNHI, -DO- -DO-
6. C.P.SALAM, -DO- -DO-
7. K.T.MUHAMMED ALI, -DO- -DO-
8. C.P.UMMER, -DO- -DO-
9. T.K.GANGADHARAN, -DO- -DO-
10. O.C.SHAKUNTHALA, -DO- -DO-
11. P.M.AMINA, -DO- -DO-
12. K.ABDUL SATHAR, -DO- -DO-
13. CHALIL ABDUL MAJEED, -DO- -DO-
14. P.GANGADHARAN, -DO- -DO-
15. K.ABDUL RASHEED, -DO- -DO-
16. S.SAMEER, -DO- -DO-
17. SHAIK MOIDEEN, -DO- -DO-
18. P.P.MUHAMMED KUTTY, -DO- -DO-
19. V.K.HAMEED, -DO- -DO-
20. A.ANOOP, -DO- -DO-
21. M.K.ABDUL RAHIMAN, -DO- -DO-
22. THAIKANDY MUSTAFA, -DO- -DO-
23. ABDUL JABBAR K.P., -DO- -DO-
24. M.T.SALEEM, -DO- -DO-
25. M.T.ABDUL MAJEED, -DO- -DO-
26. M.T.ABDUL RAFEEQUE, -DO- -DO-
27. S.ABDUL LATHEEF, -DO- -DO-
28. P.N.SUNITH, -DO- -DO-
29. P.M.MUSTAFA, -DO- -DO-
30. PALLIVALAPPIL NIZAR P.V.,
31. A.P.EBRAHIM KUTTY, -DO- -DO-
32. ABDULLA P., -DO- -DO-
33. P.ABDUL RAHIMAN, -DO- -DO-
34. RAKIB, -DO- -DO-
35. C.VINOD, -DO- -DO-
Vs
1. THE SECRETARY, KANNUR MUNICIPALITY
... Respondent
2. THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, KANNUR.
For Petitioner :SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER
For Respondent :SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :10/09/2009
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
W.P(C).No.8303 OF 2008
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of September, 2009
JUDGMENT
Petitioners are occupants of the Central market in Kannur
municipal area. They plead that they are in possession of the
respective shops, bunks etc. for more than 50 years and that
they depend on the income from their activities there. Their
request is for an order to let them continue in possession.
Fundamentally, their need is for rehabilitation since the
municipality is constructing a new building. Learned counsel for
the municipality states that the petitioners would be alloted
rooms if they are prepared to occupy the rooms in the new
building, as may be alloted to them, on such fee/rent as may be
lawfully fixed and also on deposit in accordance with law.
Though the petitioners state that there may not be any
substantial variation in the rent and deposit, there cannot be
any direction in that regard because the ground realities has
necessary to weigh even when the writ court issues directions
for rehabilitation. When the question of livelihood and
commerce become mixed matters, the balance has to be struck.
WPC.8303/08
Page numbers
The larger public interest to generate funds for an LSGI
and the interest of the individual to carry on his commercial
activity should be permitted to go hand in hand. With this in
view, this writ petition is ordered directing that the municipality
will prepare a list of eligible occupants entitled to rehabilitation,
draw up a proper scheme and make allotment by fixing the
deposit and fee/rent in a pragmatic way. All this will be on
condition that the petitioner surrender possession as and when
sought for by the municipality. Though the petitioners seek that
some alternate arrangements may be made during the
construction period, it is not feasible for the writ court to issue
such a direction though the municipality will consider
completing the building at the earliest. The writ petition is
ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
Judge.
kkb.15/9.